First there was Daniel Okrent. Then there were Byron Calame and Clark Hoyt. And now The New York Times has named its fourth public editor, Arthur Brisbane. Brisbane is the former editor and publisher of the Kansas City Star.
Bill Keller explained the job in an e-mail to his staff announcing Brisbane’s appointment:
“His assignment is to hold us accountable to our own standards, to serve as an advocate for the interests of readers, and to give readers an independent eye into the workings of this great news organization.”
The public editor serves a fixed term, has no editor, and has no official remit other than to probe about the Times’s journalism and fill some lovely Sunday column space twice a month.
So what would you recommend Brisbane do? Where have his predecessors excelled at pointing out the paper’s faults, and defending it from unjust attack? And what can Brisbane learn from where the first three have fallen short?
Paul Raeburn has a great suggestion over at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker:
"Let’s hope that Brisbane, in a break with his predecessors, will give the medical and science coverage at the Times the scrutiny it deserves. The paper’s medical and science coverage is the most influential such coverage in the American media, and yet it was rarely critiqued, or praised, or even mentioned by previous public editors at the Times."
#1 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Wed 23 Jun 2010 at 01:22 PM
The Times has never had a satisfactory public editor. They seem to start off with the right spirit, but within months they become nothing but defensive apologists, serving as the major complaint funnel to take pressure off the editors and journos. Not very useful, to the readers. They forget their job, which is *reader's advocate* not editorial apologist. The Times Ombuds especially have a history of getting angrily defensive, dismissing legitimate complaints as "partisan."
Michael Getler, when he was at the Washington Post, set the standard for public editor/ombudsman, and I haven't really seen anyone else measure up to his pioneering work. Getler takes all reader complaints seriously, gives them due consideration and a fair, thoughtful airing. The reader comes away feeling like their complaint was heard and understood, even if nothing came of it. He is still doing fine work for PBS.
Tell Mr. Brisbane there is no need for him to get defensive. Just give the complaints a fair hearing and don't be arrogantly dismissive if they come from obvious "partisans." It's often "partisans" that pay the most attention to the product.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 07:18 AM